instructions_rerun

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It usefully discloses that the rerun preserves the original parameters and scope and applies only to completed instructions, but it does not mention side effects such as whether a new execution record is created, whether approvals are required, or what the response contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb is first, and the two qualifiers ('previously completed' and 'same parameters and scope') add all necessary meaning without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers the action, the target condition, and the rerun scope. It could say more about post-invocation behavior, but nothing essential to selecting and invoking the tool correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives instructionId semantic context by tying it to a previously completed instruction, but it does not explicitly state that instructionId is the identifier of the completed instruction to rerun, nor does it describe any return-related value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete action ('Re-run') and a precise target ('previously completed instruction') while adding the scope qualifier 'same parameters and scope'. This distinguishes it from siblings such as instructions_send and instructions_cancel without needing to open their schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'previously completed instruction' is a clear condition for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the condition is enough to route an agent away from send/cancel/search operations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.